QRZ Criticized Over Refusal to List K1MAN

Well, actually, no, that would NOT be illegal. His "published schedule" is absolutely meaningless, by law. IF we were first on the frequency, then he would be the illegal one if he came on frequency. The frequency belongs to the stations who were there first. The rules are quite clear on that.

Planning is irrelevant. I have just as much right to plan a sked as anyone else with a license. No more, no less.

 

OK N9LYA, I understand your point although I believe your post is non-constructive.  I think this thread would have been much shorter and less "hateful" had Baxter not made his Nazi comments, that's what really blew this thing into the air.  

W4AMP, it's your right to request de-listing if you chose, but it seems to me like Fred wasn't disagreeing with your opinions, just doesn't want the images posted....maybe I'd do the same as you if it were me, I can't say, but I for one would like to see you and your wife stay listed.

Just out of curiosity, it is known why all the calls in that list of de-listed hams are not listed?  Was it their choice?  Just wondering.

Also, re. the suggestion of listing the basic data but not allowing Baxter to post a bio, that has been suggested many times, I guess Fred doesn't want to do that or maybe he's considering it and hasn't said yet.  We haven't heard from Fred since this thread began...

 

It is spelled "nerd".... by those who can spell.

 

Not supporting Baxter, but I just have to say, if you can spell "Nerd", then you probably are one!

J/K! Excuse me now, I need to get another piece of tape to fix my glasses.

 

Jerry,

First of all, Baxter has replaced the following page, after AOL removed it.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/K1MAN14275/myhomepage/business.html

He now spelled "nerd" properly.  So in the first place, I have helped K1MAN with his spelling.

Beyond that, it is more then obvious that the HAMs here that were labled as "nazis" were successful in having that slander removed from his public website.

As far as an advertisement for Baxter, I have to say that I mostly work CW, PSK, and the low end of the phone bands.  I never even heard one of those infamous broadcasts until last week.

I'm for all the advertisement possible, because I think that many first time listeners to those tirades, will have the same reaction as I did.  And if those new listeners have the same opinion as to those broadcasts, there will be even more tape recordings of a station that starts broadcasts over existing QSO's.  A station who uses threats to Hams that they are commiting a felony if they are on "HIS" frequencies.

The more hams aware of K1MAN, the better.  I wish that every single ham would listen and read that stuff.

No, I beleive that more advertisment won't be good for Mr. Baxter.  And the more complaints that are send to Riley, the easier it will be for Riley to justify the outlay of money to turn off the lights at K1MAN.

As it stands now, the least expensive route is to wait for license expiration.  Once that happens, Mr Baxter is going to a have a very big fight in Federal court to get that ticket renewed.

Every ham should listen and read from the source.  I don't think we need to spin it here at all.

It is obvious.  

W6NJ

 

Just saw an update on Mr. Baxter's website:

1. He's added the ARRL to his "lawsuit"

2. He's resorted to name calling (we're apparently the American Amateur "Nurd" Party now)

And he goes on and on to add callsigns to his version of AA7BQ's so-called "Brown Shirts".

The man is genuinely certifiable, folks. Let's hope and pray that he gets the psychiatric help he's so desperately begging for.

Doug, KB7RKY

 

Jerry,

Actualy, the FCC can pay attention to QRZ and other public web postings, and did in the case of a ham that was making death threats on posts at another site.

It falls under "qualifications to hold an Amateur license"

The FCC can pull your ticket, for criminal convictions, and other undesirable behaviour that they consider "dis-qualifications to hold an Amateur license".  Even if you never get on the air.

I believe that a past history of slander, would be admitted into court as to the question of "qualifications to hold an Amateur license".

So Jerry, as you assure us that none of this means anything, you may be suprised if this whole "nazi" incident comes up in a Federal hearing, as K1MAN goes about renewing his license 11 months from now.

If you are in the dark of the facts, please do some additional research into the facts, before you are so critical as to how some of us choose to use our energy.

73,  W6NJ

 

Floyd;
        I will agree with QRZ Staff if K1MAN is to be banned from your web site, then thats your decision, If there was an Ignore button on his posts I can only imagine how many people would turn that feature on ! and I was reading at the ARRL web site that there is some sort of interaction by the FCC and K1MAN I'll leave that to those who wish to go there.

as I heard on Broadcast Radio some Attorney from Harvard had made his own comments on Freedom of Speech as it was being stretched past the limits ??

well all I can say to K1MAN .........................

and I just say is GOOD LUCK ! Bob Dylan , 1970's  Bob Dylans Greatest Hits ... Homesick Blues.

 

nerd  also  nurd     (nûrd)            n. Slang

1) A foolish, inept, or unattractive person.
2) A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.


“Nurd [sic], someone with objectionable habits or traits.... An uninteresting person, a ‘dud.’”



"And then, just to show them, I'll sail to Ka-Troo And Bring Back an It-Kutch a Preep and a Proo A Nerkle a Nerd and a Seersucker, too!”

Dr. Seuss


(above info from www.dictionary.com)

 

I dissent. While I agree that QRZ is free to list or delist anyone it chooses, for any reason, the same could be said to be true of your local newspaper. Assume that your local editor decides that you are a crank, and will no longer publish your letters to the editor, because they don't represent the vewpoints of the community.

Then, let's say that it is decided to not publish any letters agreeing with your minority viewpoint.

Does that make the viewpoint go away? No, it merely creates the false assumption that such a viewpoint does not exist. This can be a dangerous thing to do. It's much better to know what certain people are advocating, and to slam them with the counter viewpoints & expose their folly.

Squelching expression is the worst avenue. It atavistic and this scenario is an indication of why the Bill of Rights is not up for popular vote, and why it exists in the first place. The same for independent judges. It is unfortunate that a majority of Americans has fallen for the propaganda that the current President wants "non-activist judges" on the Supreme Court, who will "interpret the law, not make it up." This is Orwellian. The administration is happy to have highly-activist judges, as long as they apply the desired ideology. "Activist" has had its meaning corrupted to mean "liberal," and "liberal" has had its meaning corrupted to mean "evil." "Conservatve" and "liberal" are meaningless terms on the Court anyway; Scalia has authored several recent opinions striking down criminal laws as violative of the Bill of Rights. The phrases "original intent" amd "strict constructionist" become meaningless as well when used imrpoperly. Hugo Black was a "stric constructionist," and Wm. O. Douglas was an "activist/liberal," and yet they agreed  with each other in 90% of their Supreme Court opinions. You can't apply the "original intent" of the Constituion without tyaking into account the modernization of society. Otherwise, the Fourth Amendment would protect you from a warrantless house search, but not from a warrantless search of your cell phone.

I know I seem to digress, but another example is this nonsense about "tort reform," i.e. the notion that "greedy trial lawyers" are the cause of high health care costs, etc. This all began in Southern Texas. The chief architect was Phillip Morris Company, through its strategist Karl Rove (now stategist for President bush). Notice that the argument is always put m terms of stopping "frivolous" lawsuits. This is not what "tort reform,": i.e. limiting damages, is about! A "frivolous" lawsuit gets thrown out of court by summary judgment, by the judge. What is really being targeted are huge punitive damage awards. Without those, asbestos would never have been banned from building construction. Countless other examples abound in which regulation failed, did not exist, or was considered a cost of doing busines by firms that knew their products were killing people. What of a drunk surgeon? How many similar examples do we need?

OK, so how does this all relate? It relates this way: Squelching expression on a forum that presents itself as the leading master source of peronsal ham radio bios and information, by delisting someone for other than fraudulent conduct, runs counter to the claimed image of the site. Perhaps entire topics ought to be banned next.

I agree wholeheartedly that Baxter is a crank and an embarrassment. He should not be afforded platforms for the sake of doing so. But delisting him sets a precedent which we will have to monitor in order to see whether it is applied with increasing frequency in the future.

Just because QRZ has the right to censor, does not make it anything besides censorship. The argument is not whether it is legal to censor him, but rather whether doing so is good policy. I maintain that it is not. If only that with which we agree is allowed to be published, it won't be long before publishing swrves no purpose.

 

Mr. Glen Baxter, P.E.:

Dear Mr. Baxter:

I recently noted that you have posted on your website some derogatory and defaming descriptions of me, by listing my amateur callsign W6EM, and referring to me first as a "nazi" and most lately as a "nerd."

I am also a Registered Professional Engineer, and have used my title in written correspondence both on this forum and in other matters, including official and formal proceedings before the Federal Communications Commission.

I consider such postings as a serious attack of me personally, and was meant to demean and detract from my personal and professional credentials.

As a Registered Professional Engineer, you are most certainly aware of your state of registration's rules with respect to ethical conduct.  For brevity, I will post what the State of Maine has codified into state law:

322 STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
Chapter 2: REGISTRATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Section 14 - MAINE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CODE OF ETHICS


III. OBLIGATION TO OTHER REGISTRANTS


c. Registrants shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of other registrants nor indiscriminately criticize other registrants' work.


Unless you immediately remove any reference to me from your public postings, including and specifically my amateur radio callsign, I will have no choice but to consider filing a complaint with the Maine Board of Professional Engineers alleging a violation by you of the above section.


Very Sincerely,

/s/

W. Lee McVey, P.E.
W6EM
Bradenton, FL.

via email

 

Newspapers DON'T publish letters from people they consider cranks.    If a person has an interesting point of view, they may publish it BECAUSE it's something different and interesting, but newspeople also have the right of decision to choose what they feel is worthy of printing or ignoring, same as QRZ.com.  Your logic is flawed....and when you base reasoning on a false precept, you're going to get a false conclusion, "GIGO".....garbage in, garbage out".

More false reasoning and completely missing the point.  NOBODY decided to "not publish more letters agreeing with your minority viewpoint".  I assume by "your" you mean the Baxter views, in our case.
You're hypothesizing "what if" where it does not apply.  Anyone who wants to can post here in favor of Baxter, no one is being censured except Baxter, who is not being deleted for his point of view, but for how he has chosen to express it.  Name-calling, QRM'ing and then suing Boyscouts, for crying out loud!  That's not a point of view, it's a behaviour.

I think over 40 pages of this thread has already done a pretty good job of that, don't you think?

Pseudo-political rubbish!  How many times has this already been covered?  Freedom of expression does not make right  QRM'ing Boyscouts and others, calling many of us NAZI's, airing private phone conversations, and who knows how many other things K1MAN has done and yet will do?  If Freedom of expression meant anyone can say or write anything about anyone, there would be no lawsuits for slander or libel, but there are plenty.  This is not a political issue.

 

Well, now, I have not resorted to invectives such as "pseudo political babble," or "rubbish." But this is OK, for it is your free speech. With luck, we won't in the future have moderators who would ban you for resorting to ad hominem. (I commend the moderators for clearly stating their actions regarding K1MAN and explaining them, by the way. The poll is also nice, although clearly designed to validate the censorship decision. The acceptability of ideas should not be put up to popular vote at any rate. But I commend the moderators for being transparent and forthright.)

So, if a ham sues the Boy Scouts, that warrants being censored.

Or, at least that's what YOU say.

Which is the crux of the issue: Ovewhelming numbers of people are in favor of censorship, as long as THEY are the ones doing the censoring.

And so, you see, the "slippery slope" argument is NOT inapposite here.

Please list your criteria for censoring. To have a valid argument, you must apply those criteria across the board to everyone. Otherwise, it is nothing more than squelching ideas of one individual whom you personally find repugnant.

And then, I guess we wait until you another person comes along whose ideas you personally find equally repugnant, and censorship is acceptable then, too? But wait...what if you AGREE with that person's ideas?

Imagine...there might be differences of opinion as to the "aceptability" of a person's ideas! Whom is to be made the "Acceptable Idea" Czar to filter out those ideas considered, in the Czar's divine opinion, to be too dangerous for us to hear?

I certainly do not wish to read or hear Baxter, and wish upon him as many fines as he deserves. It is, however, my free choice to ignore him, or not. To preempt the ability/right of others to learn of his distorted views, is not an action against Baxter, but rather an action against others' freedom to access his expression and make up their own minds. There are plenty of folks who believe that we need guardians to prevent us from hearing dangerous ideas; apparently, you are one of them. Respectfully, I have faith in my own ability to differentiate beween trash and substance. I do not wish for you to "protect" me by controling what I read, see or hear. (Aren't we supposedly at war to defend this concept right now? Please don't tell me our soldiers are dying for nothing!)

And yes, these points have been well-debated previously, most notably over 200 years ago, in Philadelphia. Your team lost.

- WA7VTD

 

OK, I could have been more polite.  I'm sorry for that.  

Yes, you were a bit more polite, your only problem is you're still full of baloney.  I agree that there are some very Orwellian-looking things going on in the world today, but banning Baxter and deleting him from the QRZ list isn't one of them, and your trying to relate it to all your political BS is pure rubbish.

You say you haven't resorted to invectives, yet you end with "YOUR team lost".  Just what is my team?  Want to clarify that?  Are you going to call me a nazi, next?  Sounds to me like maybe you're looking to take over for Baxter, or maybe Archie Bunker

 

Actually, your poll question should have a third option. I think QRZ has everyright to deny access to the QRZ website. However, if he is a licensed ham ...I think he should be listed in the QRZ callsign database.

Andy K3UK